there is hardly a question connected with the march of civilization more difficult to answer satisfactorily than this: what is to be done with the poor?

in our own day, when subdivision of labour has been carried to an unheard of extent, when property follows the natural law of accumulation in masses, and society numbers the proletarian as an inevitable unit among its constituents, the question presents itself in a threatening and dangerous form, with difficulty surrounding it on every side, and anarchy scowling in the background, hardly to be appeased or vanquished. but such circumstances as those we live under are rare, and almost unexampled in history: even the later and depraved days of roman civilization offer but a very insufficient pattern of a similar condition[1007]. above all it would

498

be difficult to find any parallel for them in countries where land is abundant, and the accumulation of property slow: there may be pauperism in new york, but scarcely in the valley of the mississippi. the cultivator may live hardly, poorly; but he can live, and as increasing numbers gather round him and form a market for his superfluous produce, he will gradually become easy, and at length wealthy. it is however questionable whether population will really increase very fast in an agricultural community where a sufficient provision is made for every family, and where there is an unlimited fund, and power of almost indefinite extension. on the contrary, it seems natural under these circumstances that the proportion between the consumers and the means of living should long continue to be an advantageous one, and no pressure will be felt as long as no effort is made to give a false direction to the energies of any portion of the community.

but this cannot possibly be the case in a system which limits the amount of the estate or hýd. here a period must unavoidably arise where population advances too rapidly for subsistence, unless a manufacturing effort on an extensive scale is made, and made with perfect freedom from all restraints, but those which prudence and well-regulated views of self-interest impose. if want of rapid internal communication deprive the farmer of a market, and compel him to limit his produce to the requirements of his own family, there cannot be a doubt not only that he will be compelled to remain in a stationary and not very easy position,

499

but that a difficulty will arise as to the disposal of a redundant population. many plans have been devised to meet this difficulty; a favourite one has been at all times, to endeavour to find means of limiting population itself, instead of destroying all restrictions upon occupation. the profoundest thinkers of greece, considering that a pauper population is inconsistent with the idea of state, have positively recommended violent means to prevent its increase[1008]: infanticide and exposition thus figure among the means by which plato and aristotle consider that full and perfect citizenship is to be maintained. i have already touched upon some of the means by which our forefathers attempted this regulation: emigration was as popular a nostrum with them as with us: service in the comitatus, even servitude on the land, were looked to as an outlet, and slavery probably served to keep up something of a balance: moreover it is likely that a large proportion of the population were entirely prevented from contracting marriage: of this last

500

number the various orders of the clergy, and the monks must have made an important item. it is even probable that the somewhat severe restrictions imposed upon conjugal intercourse may have had their rise in an erroneous view that population might thus be limited or regulated[1009]. but still, all these means must have furnished a very inadequate relief: even the worn-out labourer, especially if unfree, must have become superfluous, and if he was of little use to his owner, there was little chance of his finding a purchaser. what provision was made for him?

the condition of a serf or an outlaw from poverty is an abnormal one, but only so in a christian community. in fact it seems to me that the state neither contemplates the existence of the poor, nor cares for it: the poor man’s right to live is derived from the moral and christian, not from the public law: so little true is the general assertion that the poor man has a right to be maintained upon the land on which he was born. the state exists for its members, the full, free and independent citizens, self-supported on the land; and except as self-supported on the land it knows no citizens at all. any one but the holder of a free hýd must either fly to the forest or take service, or steal and become a þeóv. how the pagan saxons contemplated this fact it is impossible to say, but at the period when

501

we first meet with them in history, two disturbing causes were in operation; first the gradual loosening of the principle of the mark-settlement, and the consequent accumulation of landed estates in few hands; secondly the operation of christianity.

this taught the equality of men in the eye of god, who had made all men brothers in the mystery of christ’s passion. and from this also it followed that those who had been bought with that precious sacrifice were not to be cast away. the sin of suffering a child to die unbaptized was severely animadverted upon. the crime of infanticide could only be expiated by years of hard and wearisome penance; but the penance unhappily bears witness to the principle,—a principle universally pagan, and not given up, even to this day, by nations and classes which would repudiate with indignation the reproach of paganism, though thoroughly imbued with pagan habits. in the seventh century we read of the existence of poor, and we read also of the duty of assisting them. but as the state had in fact nothing to do with them, and no machinery of its own to provide for them, and as the clergy were ex officio their advocates and protectors, the state did what under the circumstances was the best thing to do, it recognized the duty which the clergy had imposed upon themselves of supporting the poor. it went further,—it compelled the freeman to supply the clergy with the means of doing it.

in the last years of the sixth century, gregory the great informed augustine that it was the custom of the roman church to cause a fourth part of

502

all that accrued to the altar from the oblations of the faithful to be given to the poor; and this was beyond a doubt the legitimate substitute for the old mode of distribution which the apostles and their successors had adopted while the church lurked in corners and in catacombs, and its communicants stole a fearful and mysterious pleasure in its ministrations under the jealous eyes of imperial paganism. as soon however as the accidental oblations were to a great degree replaced by settled payments (whether arising out of land or not[1010]), and these were directed to be applied in definite proportions, we may venture to say that the state had a poor-law, and that the clergy were the relieving officers. the spirit of gregory’s injunction is that a part of all that accrues shall be given to the poor; and this applies with equal force to tithes, churchshots, bóts or fines, eleemosynary grants, and casual oblations. in this spirit, it will be seen, the anglosaxon clergy acted, and we may believe that no inconsiderable fund was provided for distribution. the liability of the tithe is the first point upon which i shall produce evidence. the first secular notice of this is contained in the following law of æðelred, an. 1014:—“and concerning tithe, the

503

king and his witan have chosen and said, as right it is, that the third part of the tithe which belongs to the church, shall go to the reparation of the church, and a second part to the servants of god, and the third to god’s poor and needy men in thraldom[1011].”

but if positive public enactment be rare, it is not so with ecclesiastical law, and the recommendations of the rulers of the anglosaxon church. the poenitentials, confessionals, and other works compiled by these prelates for the guidance and instruction of the clergy abound in passages wherein the obligation of providing for the poor out of the tithe is either assumed or positively asserted. in the ‘capitula et fragmenta’ of theodore, dating in the seventh century, it is written, “it is not lawful to give tithes save unto the poor and pilgrims[1012],” which can hardly mean anything but a prohibition to the clergy, to make friends among the laity by giving them presents out of the tithe; but which shows what were the lawful or legitimate uses of tithe. again he says[1013],—“if any one administers

504

the xenodochia of the poor, or has received the tithes of the people, and has converted any portion thereof to his own uses,” etc.

in the excerptions of archbishop ecgberht we find the following canon:—“the priests are to take tithes of the people, and to make a written list of the names of the givers, and according to the authority of the canons, they are to divide them, in the presence of men that fear god. the first part they are to take for the adornment of the church; but the second they are in all humility, mercifully to distribute with their own hands, for the use of the poor and strangers; the third part however the priests may reserve for themselves[1014].”

in the confessional of the same prelate we find the following exhortation, to be addressed by the priest to the penitent:—“be thou gentle and charitable to the poor, zealous in almsgiving, in attendance at church, and in the giving of tithe to god’s church and the poor[1015].”

in the canons enacted under eádgár, but which are at least founded upon an ancient work of cummianus, there is this entry:—“we enjoin that the priests so distribute the people’s alms, that they do both give pleasure to god, and accustom the people to alms[1016];” to which however there is an addition which can scarcely well be understood of anything but tithe: “and it is right that one part be delivered to the priests, a second part for the need of the church, and a third part for the poor.”

505

the canons of ælfríc have the same entry, and the same mode of distribution as those of ecgberht: “the holy fathers have also appointed that men shall pay their tithes into god’s church. and let the priest go thither, and divide them into three: one part for the repair of the church; the second for the poor; the third for god’s servants who attend to the church[1017].”

thus according to the view of the anglosaxon church, ratified by the express enactment of the witan, a third of the tithe was the absolute property of the poor. but other means were found to increase this fund: not only was the duty of almsgiving strenuously enforced, but even the fasts and penances recommended or imposed by the clergy were made subservient to the same charitable purpose. the canons enacted under eádgár provide[1018], that “when a man fasts, then let the dishes that would have been eaten be all distributed to god’s poor.” and again the ecclesiastical institutes declare[1019]: “it is daily needful for every man that he give his alms to poor men; but yet when we fast, then ought we to give greater alms than on other days; because the meat and the drink, which we should then use if we did not fast, we ought to distribute to the poor.”

so in certain cases where circumstances rendered the strict performance of penance difficult or impossible, a kind of tariff seems to have been devised, the application of which was left to the

506

discretion of the confessor. the proceeds of this commutation were for the benefit of the poor. thus theodore teaches[1020]:—“but let him that through infirmity cannot fast, give alms to the poor according to his means; that is, for every day a penny or two or three.... for a year let him give thirty shillings in alms; the second year, twenty; the third, fifteen.”

again[1021]:—“he that knows not the psalms and cannot fast, must give twenty-two shillings in alms for the poor, as commutation for a year’s fasting on bread and water; and let him fast every friday on bread and water, and three forties; that is, forty days before easter, forty before the festival of st. john the baptist, and forty before christmas-day. and in these three forties let him estimate the value or possible value of whatsoever is prepared for his use, in food, in drink or whatever it may be, and let him distribute the half of that value in alms to the poor,” etc.

when we consider the almost innumerable cases in which penance must have been submitted to by conscientious believers, and the frequent hindrances which public or private business and illness must have thrown in the way of strict performance, we may conclude that no slight addition accrued from this source to the fund at the disposal of the church for the benefit of the poor. even the follies and vices of men were made to contribute their quota

507

in a more direct form. ecgberht requires that a portion of the spoil gained in war shall be applied to charitable purposes[1022]; and he estimates the amount at no less than a third of the whole booty. again, it is positively enacted by æðelred and his witan that a portion of the fines paid by offenders to the church should be applied in a similar manner: they say[1023], that such money “belongs lawfully, by the direction of the bishops, to the buying of prayers, to the behoof of the poor, to the reparation of churches, to the instruction, clothing and feeding of those who minister to god, for books, bells and vestments, but never for idle pomp of this world.”

more questionable is a command inculcated by archbishop ecgberht, that the over-wealthy should punish themselves for their folly by large contributions to the poor[1024]: “let him that collecteth immoderate wealth, for his want of wisdom, give the third part to the poor.”

upon the bishops and clergy was especially imposed the duty of attending to this branch of christian charity, which they were commanded to exemplify in their own persons: thus the bishops are admonished to feed and clothe the poor[1025], the clerk who possessed a superfluity was to be excommunicated

508

if he did not distribute it to the poor[1026], nay the clergy were admonished to learn and practise handicrafts, not only in order to keep themselves out of mischief and avoid the temptations of idleness, but that they might earn funds wherewith to relieve the necessities of their brethren[1027]. those who are acquainted with the mss. and other remains of anglosaxon art are well-aware how great eminence was attained by some of these clerical workmen, and how valuable their skill may have been in the eyes of the wealthy and liberal[1028].

another source of relief remains to be noticed: i mean the eleemosynary foundations. it is of course well known that every church and monastery comprised among its necessary buildings a xenodochium, hospitium or similar establishment, a kind of hospital for the reception and refection of the poor, the houseless and the wayfarer. but i allude more particularly to the foundations which the piety of the clergy or laics established without the walls of the churches or monasteries. æðelstán commanded the royal reeves throughout his realm to feed and clothe one poor man each: the allowance was to be, from every two farms, an amber of meal, a shank of bacon, or a ram worth fourpence, monthly, and clothing for the whole year. the reeves here intended must have been the bailiffs (villici, praepositi, túngeréfan) of the

509

royal vills; and, if they could not find a poor man in their vill, they were to seek him in another[1029]. in the churches which were especially favoured with the patronage of the wealthy and powerful, it was usual for the anniversary of the patron to be celebrated with religious services, a feast to the brotherhood and a distribution of food to the poor, which was occasionally a very liberal one. in the year 832 we learn incidentally what were the charitable foundations of archbishop wulfred. he commanded twenty-six poor men to be daily fed on different manors, he gave each of them yearly twenty-six pence to purchase clothing, and further ordered that on his anniversary twelve hundred poor men should receive each a loaf of bread and a cheese, or bacon and one penny[1030].

oswulf, who was duke of east kent at the commencement of the ninth century, left lands to canterbury charging the canons with doles upon his anniversary: twenty ploughlands or about twelve hundred acres at stanstead were to supply the canons and the poor on that day with one hundred and twenty wheaten loaves, thirty of pure wheat, one fat ox, four sheep, two flitches, five geese, ten hens, ten pounds of cheese (or if it happened to be a fastday, a weigh of cheese, fish, butter and eggs ad libitum), thirty measures of good welsh ale, and a tub of honey or two of wine. from the lands of the brotherhood were to issue one hundred and twenty sufl loaves, apparently a kind of cake; while

510

his lands at bourn were to supply a thousand loaves of bread and a thousand sufls[1031]. towards the end of the tenth century wulfwaru devised her lands to various relatives, and charged them with the support of twenty poor men[1032]. about the same period æðelstán the æðeling gave lands to ely on condition that they fed one hundred poor men on his anniversary, at the expense of his heirs.

from what has preceded it may fairly be argued that at all times there was a very sufficient fund for the relief of the poor, seeing that tithe, penance, fine, voluntary contribution, and compulsory assessment all combined to furnish their quota. it now remains to enquire into the method of its distribution.

the gains of the altar, whether in tithes, oblations, or other forms, were strictly payable over to the metropolitan or cathedral church of the district. the division of the fund was thus committed to the consulting body of the clergy, and their executive or head; and the several shares were thus distributed under the supervision and by the authority of the bishop and his canons in each diocese. private alms may have remained occasionally at the disposal of the priest in a small parish, but the recognized public alms which were the property of the poor, and held in trust for them by the clergy,

511

were necessarily managed by the principal body, the clergy of the cathedral. to the vicinity of the cathedral flocked the maimed, the halt, the blind, the destitute and friendless, to be fed and clothed and tended for the love of god. in that vicinity they enjoyed shelter, defence, private aid and public alms; and as in some few cases the cathedral church was surrounded by a flourishing city, they could hope for the chances which always accompany a close manufacturing or retailing population. in this way the largest proportion of the poor must have been collected near the chief church of the diocese, on whose lands they found an easy settlement, in whose xenodochia, hospitals and almshouses they met with a refuge, to whom they gave their services, such as they were, and from whom they received in turn the support which secular lords were unable or unwilling to give: for the cathedral church being generally a very considerable landowner, had the power of employing much more labour than the majority of secular landlords in any given district.

but it must not be imagined that the poor could obtain no relief save at the cathedral: every parish-church had its share of the public fund, as well as private alms, devoted to this purpose; and to the necessary buildings of every parish-church, however small, a xenodochium belonged. when now we consider the great number of churches that existed all over england in the tenth century, a number which most likely exceeded that now in being, and consequently bore a most disproportionate

512

ratio to the then population of the country,—when we further consider that the poor were comparatively few (so that a provision was absolutely made for the case where a pauper could not be found in a royal village), we shall have no difficulty in concluding that relief was supplied in a very ample degree to the needy.

it does not necessarily follow, although in itself very probable, that the claim to relief was a territorial one, that is that the man was to have relief where he was born, lived or had gained a settlement by labour. as some landowners, particularly in later times, especially honoured certain churches with the grant of tithes consecrated to them, it is possible that some paupers may have followed the convenient precedent, and argued that whither the fund went, thither might the recipients go also. and inasmuch as in many cases they would appear under the guise of poor pilgrims, we can readily understand the immense resort to particular shrines at particular periods, without overrating the devotion or the superstition of the multitude. but all this might have led to very serious consequences, had the facilities really been so great. in point of fact there were no facilities at all except for such as were from age or infirmity incapable of doing any valuable service. for among the saxons the law of settlement applied inexorably to all classes: no man had a legal existence unless he could be shown to belong to some association connected with a certain locality, or to be in the hand, protection and surety of a landed lord. even a

513

man of the rank nearest the princes or ealdorman could not leave his land without having fulfilled certain conditions; and the illegal migration of a dependent man from one shire or one estate to another was punished in the severest manner, in the persons of all concerned. he was called a flýma or fugitive, and the receiving or harbouring him was a grave offence, punishable with a heavy fine, to be raised for the benefit of the king’s officers in the shire the fugitive deserted, as well as that wherein he was received[1033]. even if the vigilance of the sheriffs and ealdorman in two shires could be lulled, it was difficult to disarm the selfishness of a landlord or an owner who thought the runaway’s services of any value, or his price worth securing. a year and a day must elapse ere the right abated from the “lord in pursuit,” for so was the lord called over all europe in the idioms of the several tongues[1034]; and hence it cannot have been a very easy matter for any man to take advantage of the poor-law, while it remained any one’s advantage to keep him from falling into the state of pauperism: in other words, no man whose labour still possessed any value would be so cast upon the world as to have no refuge but what the church in christian charity provided. and this was the real and trustworthy test of destitution. if a man was so helpless, friendless and useless that he could find no place in one of the mutual associations, or

514

in a lord’s family, it is clear that he must become an outlaw as far as the state is concerned[1035]: he must fly to the woods, turn serf or steal, or else commend himself as a pauper to the benefits of clerical superintendence: but it is perfectly obvious that none but the hopelessly infirm or aged could ever be placed under such difficulty, in a country situated like england at any period of the saxon rule, and hence pauper relief was in practice strictly confined to those for whom it was justly intended. the saxon poor-law then appears simple enough, and well might it be so: they had not tried many unsuccessful and ridiculous experiments in œconomics, suffered themselves to be misled by very many mischievous crochets, nor on the whole did they find it necessary to make so expensive a protest against bad commercial legislation as our poor-law has proved to us. but it is not quite the simple thing it seems, and requires two elements for its efficient working, which are not to be found at every period, namely a powerful, conscientious clergy, and a system of property founded exclusively upon the possession of land, and guarded by

515

a compulsory distribution of all citizens into certain fixed and settled associations.

i have already called attention to the fact that it was usual, if not necessary, on emancipating a serf, to provide for his subsistence. it is however not improbable that, though such emancipated serfs remained for the most part upon the land, and in the protection of their former lord, they found some assistance from the poor fund, either directly from the church, or indirectly through the private alms of the lord.

to resume all the facts of the case:—the state did not contemplate the existence or provide for the support of any poor: it demanded that every man should either be answerable for himself in a mutual bond of association with his neighbours; or that he should place himself under the protection of a lord, if he had no means of his own, and thus have some one to answer for him. if unfree, the state of course held him to be the chattel of his owner, who was only responsible to god for his treatment of him. he therefore who had no means and could find no one to take charge of him was an outlaw, that is, had no civil rights of any kind.

but christianity taught that there was something even above the state, which the state itself was bound to recognize. it accordingly impressed upon all communicants the moral and religious duty of assisting those of their brethren whom the strict law condemned to misery; and the clergy presented their organization as a very efficient machinery for the proper distribution of alms. the voluntary

516

oblations became in time replaced by settled payments; but the law did not alter the disposition which the clergy had adopted; it only recognized and sanctioned it; first by making the various church payments compulsory upon all classes; and secondly by enacting that the mode of distribution long prevalent should be the legal one, in a secular as well as an ecclesiastical obligation. and thus by slow degrees, as the state itself became christianized, the moral duty became a legal one; and the merciful intervention of religion was allowed to supply what could not be found in the strict rule of law.

it is unnecessary here to enquire how the power of the clergy to assist the poor was gradually diminished, by the arbitrary consecration or total subtraction of tithe, and other ecclesiastical payments; or how the burthen of supporting the poor, having become a religious as well as a civil duty, was shifted from one fund to another. it is enough to have shown how the difficulty was attempted to be met during the continuance of the anglosaxon institutions. under the present circumstances of almost every european state, it is admitted that no man is to perish for want of means, while means anywhere exist to feed him: and but two questions can be admitted, namely:—who is really in want? and,—how is he to be fed at the least possible amount of loss to others? this is as far as the state will go. religion, properly considered, imposes very different duties, and very different tests: but public morality alone ought to teach that

517

where the state has interfered on one side, it must pay the penalty on the other; and that where it has positively prescribed the directions in which men shall seek their subsistence, it is bound to indemnify those whom these restrictions have tended to impoverish. every poor law is a protest against some wrong done: and in proportion to the wrong is the energy of the protest itself. do not interfere with industry, and it will be very safe to leave poverty to take care of itself. it is quite possible to conceive a state of things in which crime and poverty shall be really convertible ideas, but of this the history of the world as yet has given us no example.

1007. the roman poor-law was, consequently upon the roman imperial institutions, of a strange, exceptional and most dangerous character. the rulers literally fed the people: panem et circenses, food and amusements; these were the relief which the wealthy and powerful supplied, and if ever these were sparingly distributed, convulsions and revolution were inevitable. the λειτουργίαι, public dinners, and other doles of a compulsory nature assisted the poorer among the athenians. (i have not cancelled this note, which was written long before the events of february 1848 and their consequences had added another pregnant example to the store of history.)

1008. περὶ δὲ ἀποθέσεως καὶ τροφῆς τῶν γιγνομένων ἔστω νομος μηδὲν πεπηρωμένον τρέφειν, διὰ δὲ πλῆθος τέκνων, ἐὰν ἡ τάξις τῶν ἐθῶν κωλύῃ, μηδὲν ἀποτίθεσθαι τῶν γιγνομένων· ὥρισται γὰρ δὴ τῆς τεκνοποιΐας τὸ πλῆθος. arist. polit. vii. c. 14. see also plato, leg. bk. 5. ed. bekk. p. 739, 740, etc. ed. stalbaum, vol. vi. p. 131, etc. the tendency of aristotle’s ideas on the subject may be gathered from his notion that the cretans encouraged παιδεραστια, in order to check population. i am informed upon good authority, that in the breisgau, and especially the see-kreis of baden, the younger children, or any supposed surplus, are permitted to die, of want of food, in order that the property (bauerngut), amounting sometimes to 100 morgen or 66 acres of land, may remain undivided. it is also certain that in other parts of europe, a woman who bears more than a certain settled number of children is looked upon with contempt.

1009. the pœnitentials recommend abstinence every wednesday, friday and sunday throughout the year: on all great fasts, high feasts and festivals: during all penances, general or special: seven months before and after parturition.

1010. “to shipmen it is commanded, like as it also is to husbandmen, that they should give unto god the tenth part of all the increase upon their stock, and moreover give alms from the nine parts that are their own. and so is it commanded to every man that from the same craft wherewith he provides for his body’s need, he provide for that of his soul also, which is better than the body.” ecc. institutes. thorpe, ii. 432. “o homo, inde dominus decimas expetit, unde vivis. de militia, de negotio, de artificio redde decimas.” st. augustine, cited by ecgb. excerp. 102. thorpe, ii. 112.

1011. æðelred, ix. § 6. thorpe, i. 342. this passage of augustine is referred to in the collection commonly attributed to ed. conf. and a detailed enumeration is given of tithe: thus, the tenth sheaf of corn; from a herd of mares, the tenth foal; where there are only one or two mares, a penny per foal. similarly of cows, the tenth calf or an obolus per calf. the tenth cheese, or the tenth day’s milk. the tenth lamb, fleece, measure of butter, and pig. of bees according to the yearly yield: from groves and meadows, mills and waters, parks, stews, fisheries, brushwood, orchards; the produce of all business, and indeed of everything the lord has given, the tenth part shall be rendered. thorpe, i. 445.

1012. cap. et fragm. theod. thorpe, ii. 65.

1013. ibid. thorpe, ii. 80. these xenodochia were hospitals or almshouses.

1014. excerp. ecgb. thorpe, ii. 98.

1015. confes. ecgb. thorpe, ii. 132.

1016. thorpe, ii. 256.

1017. thorpe, ii. 352.

1018. ibid. ii. 286.

1019. ibid. ii. 437.

1020. poenit. thorpe, ii. 61: see also ii. 83. tit. de incestis.

1021. thorpe, ii. 68. see also pp. 67, 69, 70, 134, 222.

1022. poenit. ecgb. thorpe, ii. 232.

1023. æðelr. vi. § 51. thorpe, i. 328.

1024. thorpe, ii. 232.

1025. archbishop ecgberht, from the canons of the council of orleans: “episcopus pauperibus et infirmis, qui debilitate faciente non possunt suis manibus laborare, victum et vestimentum, in quantum possibilitas fuerit, largiatur.” thorpe, ii. 105.

1026. theod. poen. xxv. § 6.

1027. ecc. inst. thorpe, ii. 404.

1028. we know that benedict biscop received as much as eight hides of land for one volume of geographical treatises, illustrated and illuminated. bed. op. min. 155.

1029. thorpe, i. 196.

1030. cod. dipl. no. 230.

1031. cod. dipl. no. 226. i think these súfls must be subflata, raised or leavened bread. the contrast afforded by the heavy black rye bread of westphalia—technically pumpernickel—will serve to explain the term. in the east of england still a kind of cakes are called sowls, probably sufls.

1032. cod. dipl. no. 694.

1033. ælfr. § 33. “be boldgetǽle.”

1034. in germany the nachfolgende, nachjagende herr. see fleta i. cap. 7. § 7, 8.

1035. the lordless man, of whom no right could be got, i.e. who being in no sort of association, could neither support himself nor offer any guarantee to society, was to be got into one by his family. if they either could not or would not produce him at the folcmót and find a lord for him, he became an outlaw, and any one might slay him. leg. æðelstán. thorpe, i. 200. the same prince decided that if any landless man, who followed a lord in some other shire, should revisit his family, they might receive him on condition of being answerable for his offences. thorpe, i. 204. but this seems to me to be the case merely of a temporary visit, made of course with the knowledge and permission of his lord.